On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:49:07 +0200 Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> no raid can replace backups anyways > > All too often I've seen RAID being used as an implicit excuse to be lenient > > about backups. Heck, I know from personal experience how enticing that can be. > Is the backup not automatic? in that case it is no backup. Sure it's automatic, by lenient I meant starting to exclude parts of their data set from being backed up, deciding what is "important" and what is not, and for the latter portion just hoping for the best because "it is RAID after all, I can lose TWO drives, what could possibly go wrong". And then something goes wrong, and it turns out even the data that was "not important" is actually important enough to warrant scrambling for how to recover it, because reobtaining it turns out to be costly / huge effort / not actually possible even if they thought it will be. > You have simply chosen a different set of mistakes to make. Considering > you need to update the "what is where" list regularly (is that > automated?) Of course. In fact I'd suggest keeping similar lists no matter which storage setup you run. One thing worse than losing data, is losing data *and* not remembering what you had on there in the first place :) -- With respect, Roman
